Aren't some of those examples like 400% crops? At least that is what I recall from the paperclip images from long ago. I never really printed beyond 50%, often smaller (14" wide prints at 300 ppi would be roughly 30%). So now concerned about something a person would need a magnifying glass taken to a print to see. But then I am not a buyer of images files or a pixel peeper.

Sorry, I know this is a serious question.

Yes, I don't usually know how people will be viewing the images, so when discussing technical artefacts I zoom in to make it really clear what I'm talking about.

Near pixel level quality can be important. For example, on one site, depending on the file size, prints are available up to 60 inches but only if the IQ is acceptable. They do a test rendering at the required size and assess the quality, if the quality isn't high enough, the photographer/artist is contacted to see if a higher quality file is available, if not, the sale is cancelled. The issue could be noise, over-sharpening, lack of detail, halos, jaggies, etc. So my interest is whether anyone has experience of X-Trans artefacts causing a QA issue.

-Najinsky

If you need a camera that will allow you to sell photos printed at 60 inches, I think you would be better off looking at something with much higher resolution, especially if you want the maximum DPI. That's probably a bigger issue than artefacts, honestly.